Monday, May 21, 2012

Subtext matters

So while I was on vacation an interview I did with the very lovely Sasha Alexander published over at AfterEllen. If you haven’t given it a look-see, I suggest you do. She was affable and engaged and gracious. She also talked about boob grabs and wet dream sequences and being a lesbians at heart. So, you know, there’s that. As the season 3 premiere of “Rizzoli & Isles” approaches, some have used it as an opportunity to restarted the whole “Subtext Sucks” argument. Which is a perfectly valid way to feel. You don’t have to see, enjoy or appreciate subtext. Not in the least. But to say other people shouldn’t either, well, that’s entirely another thing.

Because the primary argument against anyone being allowed to like subtext is essentially a straw man. It says liking subtext will prevent real LGBT stories from being told. It says we’re settling. It says we’re part of the problem. To which I say phooey. This would require the only two possibilities in the world for us gay viewers: Either 1) We demand more gay characters, or, 2) We like subtext. But, you see, it’s quite possible and simple to do both. And I do both, adamantly. Being gay or a minority or any other “other” than your standard issue white heterosexual dude or dudette in U.S. entertainment means seeing yourself at a dramatically reduced rate – if at all. All too often it means being the best friend or the crazy coworker or the second cousin twice removed. And it means constantly having to fight to have our stories told. So to see ourselves we’ve turned to both telling our own stories and creating our own alternate realities out of other people’s stories.

The idea that liking subtext makes TV producers pander to us for ratings is also a bit of a laugher. I mean, do you really think TV writers are sitting around asking each other how they can cast two strong female leads with inescapable chemistry to interact with each other in a way that drives lesbians crazy? No, they’re not. They’re thinking how can we get this dumb product placement for Doritos into next week’s episode so they’ll pay them millions of dollars. And also, did craft service run out of the red Gummy bears today. And, sure, if a show realizes its characters appeal to a certain fanbase, they might play with that dynamic. (Seriously, Quinn, stop making out with Berry.) But would that prevent them from writing another gay character? I don’t see why. If anything, it would show them how vocal and hungry and enthusiastic the gay audience can be when given something to cheer about.

If I read subtext between two strong female characters, it’s because I want them to be like me. It’s because it’s fun/sexy/exciting to think they might be like me. And because, as we all are painfully aware, most women aren’t like you and me. We’re never going to be the majority of TV characters – ever. Should we continue to petition for more and better representation? Good God, yes. Always demand more. But to fill the void that will always be there, if I want to think Alex Cabot and Olivia Benson like to play good cop/bad ADA in their spare time, who does it hurt? That’s not settling, that’s embracing. To see the world through rainbow-colored glasses just makes the world more colorful. It doesn’t mean that we still can’t change it.

The initial subtext between Brittany and Santana on Glee was picked up by us the viewers, and in turn made into a real relationship. I think this adds to your debate that subtext is important, fun, and can even lead to more. I don't think I am ever settling by enjoying subtext, I just think I am seeing more, and understanding the characters in a light that makes them interesting to me. Can't wait for season 3 of Rizzoli and Isles to start and loved your Sasha interview, she always comes across as cute and classy. Quite the hot combination.

I think that subtext "will they, won't they" is important to any relationship tv show whether it's straight or gay (i.e Mulder & Scully, David & Maddie, etc). After these characters get together, it usually pretty much sucks (i.e. Bones & Booth). That's the drama that makes us watch. So I don't see enjoying subtext any different than simple delightful anticipation. Will Jane and Maura ever get together? Probably not, but if they did it would probably suck like all the other shows.

BRAVA Ms. Snarker! Thanks for doing the wonderful interview with Sasha Alexander and for your trenchant response to the zealots among us who keep saying that those who enjoy SUB-text are selling out. The incandescent chemistry between Sasha & Angie is what keeps me coming back for more.

Good post. But it also makes me think that there are some shows/movies that start out with a gay focus, but would never get support for production because of that minority audience. "Bend it like Beckham" comes to mind. I believe it's true that originally it was a lesbian romance between the two female characters, but couldn't get funded for production? Thus subtext was created instead...You're right, we create subtext instinctively. Unfortunately, I've lost the ability to watch hetero romance movies/novels/etc and truly enjoy them because now I understand WHY I needed to create subtext when I was younger. The jaded lesbian in me inhibits my ability to enjoy subtext. I'm too concerned with the reality of the situation-that we will never be fully represented. We have to cling desperately to a minor character that likely will be killed off or impregnated and disappear from the show...it's all too disheartening for me to read-in to anything not made for 'us' as a community.

I was explaining to a friend of mine why "The Killing" as a show was so important for females period. This show has a strong female lead who isn't trying to impress a man or dating one and who wears jeans and sneakers all the time. She was quite a bust in the mother department but she found a place for the kid eventually. Mirielle Enos is sometimes pretty but mostly not and this is important to see on T.V. The fact that women can be compelling without being ultra gorgeous is a very vital concept. Rizzoli and Isles are very fun especially Rizzoli when butch. They both have boyfriends at different times and both are ultra gorgeous. The subtext is cute but just that. I don't know if this show will further the cause of women or lesbians. Women need to portrayed as people going through life and not as objects of sexual desire. I will probably try to catch it for the eye candy, fulfilling my baser instincts.

It would be really nice if Rizzoli & Isles, after capitalizing fully on the subtext supporters to get renewed, didn't then ridicule the idea of Jane & Maura as a couple for cheap laughs (ie LLBFFs-haha! Giovanni is so stupid, so is them being a couple-ahahahahaha!).

It's so difficult to gauge how the fandom will react though! Sasha is straight and when she *laughs* and says that the "wet dream" is how she would have done it, many people think that she's being mean. Just like we think straights don't get us, I guess they sometimes feel that we don't get them either!

I love subtext. Just like people have forever shipped Bones/Booth or Ziva/Tony, we'd always ship Maura/Jane. Whether it would happen or not is completely up to the creators of the show and I respect that!

On the one hand, we wish to be treated equally and so should be able to take the fact that it might still only be subtext for the next 6 seasons (renewal permitting). On the other, we should also keep sending out the message that just because they are both women, the creators can't just overlook how perfect a couple Maura and Jane would make, and keep us at bay forever!

See, I'm not sick of the subtext. I don't mind making up subtext, I've even done it for hetero couples on shows.

What I'm sick of is that there are some shows that start inching the subtext into maintext for awhile, get everyone's excitement up and then pull the rug out from under the viewers who were rooting for that relationship (and no, I'm not talking about R&I, the writers/producers whoever have made it abundantly clear that the two women are hetero with a capital H). Sometimes it's a seriously sharp U turn when the writers change their mind from the m/m f/f relationship that they almost portrayed back to the m/f one.

Or, they have these two women characters who are strong and are on a procedural show not a show that generally has personal life stories, and then all of a sudden, it's like a wave of heterosexuality is being pushed down the viewers throat. Those are the situations that I have the problem with... it's not the subtext, or watching for or the writers writing to the subtext, it's when we the viewers get jerked around.

Brought to the precipice of something we have so little of and then screwed over. For once I'd like a show to follow through with their tease.

I love subtext. Subtext allows my almost gay characters to not die, try to destroy the world, or become 'ungay' because of the creators need to show how being gay is 'morally wrong' to appeal to conservative American family values.

I know we desperately need maintext, and sometimes I wish we lived in a world where once in a while, a subtext couple could become a happy, stable maintext couple.

But I certainly don't blame Sasha for the fact that the creators have decided to make the characters hetero with a capital H. Sasha is still a strong ally of the lesbian community from everything I've seen her tweet, from attending Outfest to going to dinner with Lily Tomlin.

I think people just want to be taken seriously. It's not too much to ask.

There are two different kinds of subtext. The kind the audience reads into the show when the show's not trying and the kind the show deliberately adds. The first is pretty harmless and I don't mind it because it actually is 100% in the minds of the audience. But the second isn't. If you're going to tell your story straight, tell it straight. Otherwise, yes, you do give people who are dying for representation out here some false hope that maybe this time they'll actually get it. It's just disappointing.

This argument has never really been about subtext. R&I, especially on the marketing side, does pander and gay-bait in a way that is unbecoming.

I agree that TV writers often have better things to do with their day than work overtime pandering to what amounts to a small minority for ratings. But that small minority of lesbians is the only base that has created any buzz (especially online) for a show that otherwise would have virtually none at all. And I'm sure TPTB hope that can lead to more recognition by the masses and translate to ratings. So to say that R&I as a business entity does not have the time or inclination to pander is burying your head in the sand.

The most obvious example is Twitter Jane/Maura that TNT uses to tease the romantic potential between the characters. It's also conveniently something most "mainstream" viewers would never see or notice. Also, some of their TV promos very clearly speak to the gay in a way that is flat out annoying when the series then goes out of it's way to show how very straight their characters are.

And to me, that is where things cross a line that needs to be called out. It's those things that people want to see you and AfterEllen acknowledge instead of just giving free publicity to yet another show with women chasing cock.

To the anonymous before me: Twitter Jane and Maura are fan creations, not official PR tools of TNT. Janet Tamaro made that clear.

In general, I agree that pandering can get annoying. And while R&I obviously knows it has a lesbian following, the truth is that even for this show, the lesbian audience is still a minority.

R&I is a successful summer show with high ratings (summer category; I highly doubt that lesbians form a large enough percentage of that viewership to claim credit for its success. (It needs better writing, but that's another conversation altogether.)

To Ms. Snarker: I agree. Nothing wrong with enjoying subtext. More rainbow glasses for everyone.

To the anonymous above me. Hogwash. Twitter Jane and Maura are under the control of TNT. Janet Tamaro should (and I'm sure does) know better.

I never said the lesbians are a large portion of the audience for ratings. I said the lesbians are the only ones creating a buzz for the show, especially online. It's about free publicity that reaches a larger segment of the viewing public.

Anonymous, how do you know Twitter Jane and Maura are "controlled" by TNT? The conspiracy is never as vast as we fans like to believe. Sorry, but show me some proof besides your speculation. I'd rather go with what someone actually affiliated with the show has said.

lol... There is no "conspiracy". Don't make this more than it is. It's just marketing. Those character names are copyrighted. That fan would not be allowed to continue to operate those accounts without the express permission and direction of TNT. It gives TNT & the production company distance - plausible deniability, if you will - when it comes to promoting to the gay audience. It contributes positively to the buzz they want to maintain for the show. It's that simple. No conspiracy.

I'm not a regular viewer of R&I (the writing is too terrible for me to bother with) so my panties are not in a bunch about anything except their marketing practices and gay publications that continue to not comment on their (tired but still successful) strategies but gleefully promote their straight product. That is what I study and follow.

I'm all for subtext. I love watching R&I .. love the recaps. What spoils it for me is TNT's handling of the reaction to it by the fans.

The subtext is clear from the start and I think it may be wrong to suggest the writers were clueless from the start. LesYay was clearly intended from season one, episode one onwards. To suggest otherwise seems a bit naive of the processes involved in writing such a show.

I don't however think it was written in to attract lesbians - it's more for straight guys if you believe this brilliant video .. http://current.com/shows/infomania/90732681_thats-gay-lady-kisses.htm

There was a piece in the May issue of DIVA magazine about Rizzoli & Isles which points out why the lesbian audience might be frustrated by R&I. It's important to bring these issues out. They are being freely discussed in the fandom - it's better than blindly following the PR spin by a TV network. That way danger lies ..

Sorry, but you're the one making it a bigger deal than it is. Only a tiny fraction of viewers even know Twitter Jane and Maura exist - much less bother to follow them. And the 'buzz' created by this cloak-and-dagger 'marketing' - if you can even label some fan operating fictional character Twitter accounts with the tacit permission of the network 'marketing' - is miniscule, at best.

Lesbians glommed onto R&I even before any of this supposed marketing took place - before subtext-y promos and gag reels. I'm not going to blame TNT for seeing that as an opportunity, even as Janet Tamaro does her level best to talk about how straight her characters are.

Lesbians will of course be frustrated if they're watching in the hope that these emphatically straight characters are ever going to get together romantically. Just enjoy it for what it is - a buddy show with 2 female leads, and some fun subtext if a viewer chooses to view the show with that lens on.

Otherwise isn't the lesbian fanbase just making itself a victim of its own unrealistic expectations? 'Shippers' of all stripes - straight and gay- always feel like victims of the showrunner and/or network. It's not unique to lesbian fans, by a long shot.

Well, I'm not a 'shipper' but I think "victim" is an overwrought term to use for any audience when talking about a TV show. I truly hope there are not many folks out there that feel that torn up. But, I don't see how it's making a big deal out of something by simply pointing out the signs these shows employ and showing annoyance about that in the year 2012. It's tedious and it's time for programming to move into the next century. It's not going to happen with this show but that doesn't mean that lesbian fans (and media outlets) should not point out to networks that it is time to "put up or shut up" when they decide to employ those tactics. Usually with a straight coupling there is at least the potential for some payoff. Not so when teasing gay relationships.

Do I blame TNT & the showrunners for continuing to use a strategy that works? No. Do I do blame gay media outlets that ignore those practices but try to reduce the conversation to straw man arguments solely about subtext while selling a network's straight product? Yes.